Thus have I heard: at one time the Lord was staying near Sāvatthī in the Jeta Grove in Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Lord; having approached, he exchanged greetings with the Lord; having conversed in a friendly and courteous way, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, the wanderer Vaeehagotta spoke thus to the Lord:

[1] “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[2] “Then good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is not eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is not eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[3] “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[4]“Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is not an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is not an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[5] “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The life-principle and the body are the same, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’? “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The life-principle and the body are the same, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[6] “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[7] “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[8] “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[9] “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

[10] “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata neither is, nor is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“Now, good Gotama, the revered Gotama, on being asked: “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Then good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is not eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is not eternal, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The world is not an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The world is not an ending thing, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The life-principle and the body are the same, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’? says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The life-principle and the body are the same, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The life-principle is one thing, the body another, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Now, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathāgata both is and is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

“On being asked: “Then, good Gotama, is the revered Gotama of this view: ‘The Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood’?” says: “I, Vaccha, am not of this view: ‘The Tathagata neither is nor is not after dying, this is indeed the truth, all else is falsehood.’”

What is the peril the revered Gotama beholds that he thus does not approach any of these (speculative) views?” “Vaccha, to think that ‘the world is eternal’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the world is not eternal’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the world is an ending thing’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the world is not an ending thing’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the life-principle and the body are the same’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the life-prineiple is one thing, the body another’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the Tathāgata is after dying’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the Tathāgata is not after dying’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the Tathāgata both is and is not after dying’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

Vaccha, to think that ‘the Tathāgata neither is nor is not after dying’, this is going to a (speculative) view, holding a view, the wilds of views, the wriggling of views, the scuffling of views, the fetter of views; it is accompanied by anguish, distress, misery, fever; it does not conduce to turning away from, nor to dispassion, stopping, calming, super-knowledge, awakening, nor to nibbāna.

I, Vaccha, beholding that this is a peril, thus do not approach any of these (speculative) views.” “But does the good Gotama have any (speculative) view?” “Vaccha, going to ‘speculative view’, this has been got rid of by the Tathāgata. But this, Vaccha, has been seen by the Tathāgata:

[1] ‘Such is material shape, such is the arising of material shape, such the going down of material shape;

[2] such is feeling, such is the arising of feeling, such the going down of feeling;

[3] such is perception, such is the arising of perception, such the going down of perception;

[4] such are the habitual tendencies, such is the arising of the habitual tendencies, such the going down of the habitual tendencies;

[5] such is consciousness, such is the arising of consciousness, such the going down of consciousness.’

Therefore I say that by the destruction, dispassion, stopping, giving up, casting out of all imaginings, all supposings, all latent pride that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer,’ a Tathāgata is freed without clinging.”

[1] “But, good Gotama, where does a monk arise whose mind is freed thus?” ‘Arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

[2] “Well then, good Gotama, does he not arise?” “‘Does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

[3] “Well then, good Gotama, does he both arise and not arise?” “‘Both arises and does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

[4] “Well then, good Gotama, does he neither arise nor not arise?” “‘Neither arises nor does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.”

“But, good Gotama, on being asked: “But, good Gotama, where does a monk arise whose mind is freed thus?” you say: ‘Arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.” “But, good Gotama, on being asked: “Well then, good Gotama, does he not arise?” you say: “‘Does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.” “But, good Gotama, on being asked: “Well then, good Gotama, does he both arise and not arise?” you say: “‘Both arises and does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.” “But, good Gotama, on being asked: “Well then, good Gotama, does he neither arise nor not arise?” you say: “‘Neither arises nor does not arise,’ Vaccha, does not apply.” I am at a loss on this point, good Gotama, I am bewildered, and that measure of satisfaction I had from former conversation with the good Gotama, even that have I now lost.”

“You ought to be at a loss, Vaccha, you ought to be bewildered. For, Vaccha, this Dhamma is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful, excellent, beyond dialectic, subtle, intelligible to the wise; but it is hard for you who are of another view, another allegiance, another objective, of a different observance, and under a different teacher. Well then, Vaccha, I will now question you in return. Answer as it pleases you.

What do you think about this, Vaccha? If a fire were blazing in front of you would you know: ‘This fire is blazing in front of me’?” “Good Gotama, if a fire were blazing in front of me I would know: ‘This fire is blazing in front of me.’” “But if, Vaccha, someone were to question you thus: ‘This fire that is blazing in front of you, what is the reason that this fire is blazing?’, what would you, Vaccha, reply when questioned thus?” “If, good Gotama, someone were to question me thus: ‘This fire that is blazing in front of you, what is the reason that this fire is blazing?’, I, good Gotama, on being questioned thus would reply thus: ‘This fire that is blazing in front of me, this fire is blazing because of a supply of grass and sticks.” “If that fire that was in front of you, Vaccha, were to be quenched, would you know: ‘This fire that was in front of me has been quenched’?” “If, good Gotama, that fire that was in front of me were to be quenched, I would know: ‘This fire that was in front of me has been quenched.’”

“But if someone were to question you thus, Vaccha: ‘That fire that was in front of you and that has been quenched, to which direction has that fire gone from here, to the east, or west, or north, or south? On being questioned thus, what would you, Vaccha, reply?” “It does not apply, good Gotama. For, good Gotama, that fire blazed because of a supply of grass and sticks, yet from having totally consumed this and from the lack of other fuel, being without fuel it is reckoned to be quenched.”

[1] “Even so, Vaccha, that material shape by which one recognising the Tathāgata might recognise him, that material shape has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence and is not liable to arise again in the future. Freed from denotation by material shape is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply.

[2] “That feeling by which one recognising the Tathāgata might recognise him, that feeling has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence and is not liable to arise again in the future. Freed from denotation by feeling is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply.

[3] “That perception by which one recognising the Tathāgata might recognise him, that perception has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence and is not liable to arise again in the future. Freed from denotation by perception is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply.

[4] “Those habitual tendencies by which one recognising the Tathāgata might recognise him, those habitual tendencies have been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence and is not liable to arise again in the future. Freed from denotation by habitual tendencies is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply.

[5] “That consciousness by which one recognising the Tathāgata might recognise him, that consciousness has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence and is not liable to arise again in the future. Freed from denotation by consciousness is the Tathāgata, Vaccha, he is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean. ‘Arises’ does not apply, ‘does not arise’ does not apply, ‘both arises and does not arise’ does not apply, ‘neither arises nor does not arise’ does not apply.

When this had been said, the wanderer Vacchagotta spoke thus to the Lord: “Good Gotama, it is like a great sāl-tree not far from a village or market town whose branches and foliage might be dissolved because of their impermanence, whose bark and young shoots might be dissolved, whose softwood might be dissolved, so that after a time the branches and foliage gone, the bark and young shoots gone, the softwood gone, clear of them it would be established on the pith. It is excellent, good Gotama, excellent, good Gotama. It is as if, good Gotama, one might set upright what had been upset, or might disclose what was covered, or point out the way to one who had gone astray, or might bring an oil-lamp into the darkness, so that those with vision might see material shapes, even so is Dhamma made clear in many a figure by the good Gotama. I am going to the revered Gotama for refuge, and to Dhamma and to the Order of monks. May the revered Gotama accept me as a lay-follower, one gone for refuge from today forth for as long as life lasts.”

Discourse to Vacchagotta on Fire: The Second